The business of smuggle is booming as well, at least that's what I've heared. Here in Germany they need a job not to get deported, any job. You
know... the ones with horribly low wages nobody else would like to have longer than necessary.

And yet nearly all of our alternative thinkers tend to see only the young male refugee pictures they're ought to see, peddling this muslim terrorist
BS for more fearmongering.

It's crazy, which is why my flag for your OP is probably the last you'll get.

These refugees weren't living in the dirt in Syria (or where many of the Calais migrants arrive from: Bangladesh, Nigeria, Central Africa) They lived
in cities, in houses. They arrived with their brand new mobile phones and nice clothes. They didn't dump their best possessions to get here. Not
saying many aren't genuine in their refugee status but the image you must have of refugees arriving naked and emaciated isn't always the case

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, told MPs in a statement on Monday that 200 unaccompanied children had been brought to the UK since 10 October,
including 60 girls who were deemed to be at risk of sexual exploitation.

The Churches’ Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS) has ex­­pressed concern over Home Office figures from 2005, which suggested that
65 per cent of child refugees entering the UK gave false information about their ages, and were found to be adults.

Who’s worse: pro-refugee observers who want to mother the children of Calais, or anti-refugee scaremongers who want to keep them out of
Britain? The infantilisers or the criminalisers? Those who view refugees as overgrown infants in need of the tears and care of loving Westerners, or
those who see them as potential destabilisers of Britain, strange adults only masquerading as kids so they can come here to do bad? It’s hard to
tell. They might be as bad as each other. One thing is clear, though: for all their wordy clashes in the press and on Twitter, both sides in the great
child refugee non-debate share something important in common: they see these migrants less as individuals with autonomy and aspirations than as
symbols of something or other through which we might make a point about
ourselves.

I think you're very unfair with that comment. I have threads in the past showing support for migrant women and children. I'm concerned about why they
should be in danger.

I was once so hungry I ate an apple peel that had been run over by several cars. It gave me the energy to continue my journey. The greatest gift I was
ever given in those days was a smile. I slept rough for years. That gives me a different perspective from most. A more informed view one might say.

To see the frantic donating, endless new trainers, jeans, warm jackets, phones, food, bedding, shelters. I know I'm not alone in wondering where all
that generosity was in my time. I think the previously quoted article has hit the nail on the head. The debate is self obsessed.

You’re so vain you think this refugee crisis is about you
Both sides in the child-refugee debate are astonishingly self-obsessed.

This video shows how some police, and allegedly military in police clothing, treated my peers. Compare that to the gentle ushering into comfortable
coaches we saw at Calais.

Skip to 2:38.

In spite of the vastly more civilised approach to policing these days, there's still a need to throw stones? You must have seen the teargas versus
stones battles in Calais. That kind of behaviour isn't called for. The ban on cameras is also very suspect. We worked long and hard to get cameras
accepted everywhere to protect all of us from abuse. But at the Calais camp photography away from the main street was very strongly discouraged.
There'll be people who think they can take the camera ban with them.

We have to think about what future we want. No stone throwers and no unsafe camera ban.

Trying to stick on topic. It would be an obvious choice for people traffickers to own sweat shops in Turkey and other places, then encourage a migrant
stream that provides cheap labour.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.